I wish someone would stand-up to these people

[Browns7213]

Holy Spirit implements no-nicotine hiring policy

CAMP HILL — Beginning April 1, Holy Spirit, a Geisinger Affiliate, will no longer hire job applicants who use tobacco products, including cigarettes, cigars and chewing or smokeless tobacco.

“Holy Spirit is joining numerous hospitals and medical organizations across the country that are encouraging healthier living, decreasing absenteeism and reducing health care costs by adopting strict policies that require non-nicotine use by job applicants,” said Lori Moran, director of public relations and marketing with Holy Spirit. “Our mission is healing and good health, so it is important for us to set a good example for our patients and community.”

During the hiring process, all applicants, will be tested for nicotine as part of the routine drug screening. The test, which will include screening for cigarettes, cigars, smokeless tobacco, snuff, nicotine patches and nicotine gum, only detects active nicotine users, not those exposed to second-hand smoke. The policy also affects any applicants receiving offer letters as of April 1.

Current employees are not affected by the new policy, but are encouraged to take advantage of the tobacco-cessation programs offered through Holy Spirit’s employee wellness program.

The health system said non-nicotine hiring policies are legal in 21 states, including Pennsylvania.

Geisinger Health System implemented its non-nicotine hiring policy in 2012. Holy Spirit became an affiliate of Geisinger in 2014.

[tmoran]

On one hand, I obviously don't like the policy. On the other, I think employers should be allowed to dictate their employment criteria.

[tnlawyer]

Bah, they're a private company. While I think the policy is kind of screwy, I think it's their prerogative.

[Cool Breeze]

I don't think a government organization should be allowed to do this, but privately owned businesses should be free to hire who they please.

I feel the same way about businesses who post "no guns" signs. Its silly and accomplishes nothing good, but it is their business.

I'll work somewhere else and I'll shop somewhere else.

[Emperor Zurg]

On one hand, I obviously don't like the policy. On the other, I think employers should be allowed to dictate their employment criteria.

Bah, they're a private company. While I think the policy is kind of screwy, I think it's their prerogative.

I don't think a government organization should be allowed to do this, but privately owned businesses should be free to hire who they please.

I feel the same way about businesses who post "no guns" signs. Its silly and accomplishes nothing good, but it is their business.

I'll work somewhere else and I'll shop somewhere else.

Yup. Stupid policy but a private company should be able to be stupid if they want to.

On the other hand, maybe it all boils down to some sort of non-discrimination and not wanting to pay the cig smokers for a 5 minute cigarette break every 30 minutes. I could understand that.

[bobajob]

I don't think a government organization should be allowed to do this, but privately owned businesses should be free to hire who they please.

I feel the same way about businesses who post "no guns" signs. Its silly and accomplishes nothing good, but it is their business.

I'll work somewhere else and I'll shop somewhere else.

Really though? How about 'No blacks, asians, women, homos or wops need apply.'

I use the racially charged language here deliberately to make a point. Smoking is legal.

[Tobias Lutz]

Really though? How about 'No blacks, asians, women, homos or wops need apply.'

I use the racially charged language here deliberately to make a point. Smoking is legal.

One doesn't just decide in their 20s to quit being "black, asian, a women" etc. Personally I don't support the idea of anti-discrimination clauses extending to tobacco users.

[Aithos]

Really though? How about 'No blacks, asians, women, homos or wops need apply.'

I use the racially charged language here deliberately to make a point. Smoking is legal.

The point you guys are missing is that this is a free country and they are allowed to make hiring decisions based on things that are PERSONAL CHOICES. You don't choose your race, you don't choose your sex, you don't choose your sexual orientation and all of those things are protected by hiring laws. You *do* choose whether you're a smoker or not, whether you do drugs or not and companies are well within their rights to make hiring decisions based on those things. I would be a lot MORE concerned if as a PRIVATE BUSINESS you were not legally allowed to choose the sort of employees you want to hire. I also think that hiring based on obesity is absolutely fine and a lot of companies already do it.

As someone who has been a store manager and hired employees here are some of my thoughts (and you're welcome to disagree, it's a free country):

1) If you are 300+ pounds you don't take care of yourself, you aren't even remotely physically fit which makes any job requiring you to do something besides sit behind a desk a challenge. Your insurance costs are higher, you probably aren't as healthy and therefore miss more work, you probably don't work as hard because there is a higher chance that you're lazy than someone who is fit and somewhat in shape. Etc. Now I'm talking about morbidly obese people, not people with a beer belly or a bit of pudge. You can see where the thought process is though, and it's well within my rights to make those kinds of judgements. Being obese is a personal choice in all but the most extreme genetic circumstances. Losing weight can be tough, but anyone willing to commit FULLY to doing it will be successful.

2) If you're a smoker many of the same things apply - your healthcare costs are higher, you probably miss more days of work, you probably don't work as hard (because you take more breaks), you are probably less physically fit for any manual labor type job, etc. Again, it's a completely valid reason to judge someone. Also, if you show up to a job interview reeking like cigarettes and couldn't refrain from smoking after you shower/dress for an interview (meaning you can't go a couple hours without a smoke) then I'm not hiring you. It means you either 1) don't care you smell like shit or 2) you smoke over a pack a day and you'll always be outside smoking and not working.

I get the fact that its your life and your choice what you want to do - and I FULLY support your right to make that choice. I won't judge or criticize you for it, I really don't care at all. I just ALSO fully support *MY* right and the right of anyone who owns a business to NOT hire you for those choices. It's not a double standard and it's not hypocritical, freedom works both ways and people in groups that are often discriminated against like to forget that when it's convenient.

People also like to conveniently forget that there are very real consequences to drug use (and nicotine is a drug) - do you want your air traffic controller fiending for a smoke when he's calculating your flights approach? I don't. How about your doctor when you're having surgery or the nurse who's assisting? You think maybe during a lengthy procedure someone who normally smokes every hour might perform less well (mentally and physically) when their body doesn't have that drug they are used to? Ever been around a smoker when they are craving badly? They are irritable, they get shaky, their attention span is bad, it affects their memory and their attitude. Not exactly the kind of people you want helping patients.

BTW - I am a strong advocate of smokers rights. I just don't feel that your right to smoke gives you the right to decide whether or not someone hires you. If I don't like tattoos I don't have to hire people with them. If I feel that stereotypes and the impressions of my customers will be negative toward someone with visible tattoos - tough shit. I fully support your right to get them, it's your choice whether you want to (and I think tattoos are awesome), but you didn't have to get them and you knew there would be repercussions when you did it. Just like if you smoke, you KNOW there are repercussions to it and you better be prepared to deal with them.

EDIT for TLDR:

TLDR - People making the argument against businesses that hire based on personal choices need to put themselves in the shoes of the people on the opposite side. It's really easy to get offended or feel that it's unfair when you sympathize with the smoker, but pretend you're the business owner for a minute and you've got an entire staff of people who take 5 breaks of 15 min or more a day to smoke ON TOP of their lunch break, who miss a couple days of work every month for health reasons, who constantly reek of cigarette smoke and cause customer complaints. Then on top of everything else the cost of heath insurance goes up and cuts into the profitably of your business, which for some small businesses can be a big deal...

[izkeh]

I worked for a company that tried this. It really depends upon what the firm is as to whether this will work or not. If it's a manufacturing facility, ehhhhhh, not so much. A doctor's office; sure. The company I worked for built things so the type of people they needed to hire were all failing the nic test. They rescinded the policy shortly after and were able to fill open positions within a month.

[garublador]

The test, which will include screening for cigarettes, cigars, smokeless tobacco, snuff, nicotine patches and nicotine gum, only detects active nicotine users, not those exposed to second-hand smoke. The policy also affects any applicants receiving offer letters as of April 1.

Current employees are not affected by the new policy, but are encouraged to take advantage of the tobacco-cessation programs offered through Holy Spirit’s employee wellness program.

I wonder if any of those cessation programs include the use of patches or gum.

Not hiring someone based on that criteria seems like a bad idea. Why not just charge them more for health insurance? Also the phrase "require non-nicotine use" makes me think the people running that program might not be the brightest. How can you use "not nicotine?"